School Administrator Accused Of Child Porn Because He Investigated Sexting At School

from the just-sad dept

There have been a lot of stories recently about the rise of "sexting" (kids sending naked photos of themselves via mobile phones) and how its leading to child porn charges. It's quite clear that this is an overreaction to the law. Kids definitely need to be educated about doing such things, but charging them with child pornography is highly questionable. Even more ridiculous is the idea of slapping recipients of such photos with child pornography charges, even if they didn't request the images. This is just one problem (of many) with current child pornography laws. Since possession alone is considered a crime, if you want to make someone guilty of a crime, you just need to send them illegal photos.

That leads to even more ridiculous situations, like the story in Wired about an assistant principal, Ting-Yi Oei, at a high school in Virginia. After rumors were spreading about "sexting" happening at the school, he was asked by the principal to investigate. In the course of the investigation, a male student showed him a photo he had received of the torso of a woman wearing a bra and covering her breasts with her arms. The principal told Oei to preserve a copy of the image. Not being very computer literate, he asked the student with the photo how to get a copy himself. The student sent it to Oei's phone and told him how to email it to his own computer, which Oei did. After investigating the matter, Oei did not believe the student in the photo went to the school, and informed the principal about everything.

Later, due to a variety of other events, the original student who had the photo was suspended. In anger, his mother called the police, telling them about the photo, which resulted in the police investigating Oei... and charging him with "failure to report suspicion of child abuse." Of course, he had reported everything to the principal (what was legally required) and it wasn't clear that there was actually any child abuse. And, finally, the fact that he couldn't identify the student meant that he had no way of actually reporting who was abused.

But, rather than drop the charges, prosecutors kept on going. They added more charges, including possession of child porn (a felony, rather than the misdemeanor) and then later adding charges of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" for asking the original student to send him the photo (which, remember, the principal had told him to archive).

Oei's name was all over the news, accused of child pornography. He was stripped of his job since he couldn't be seen at the school around students. He had to raise money to fight the charges and is now in tremendous debt. Last week, a court finally tossed out the charges, noting that the photo itself isn't even pornographic (let alone all the other problems with the lawsuit).

Child porn is a very real and very serious issue that needs to be dealt with. But we seem to have put together a set of laws that allow for massive reputation-destroying witch hunts, rather than actually tackling the real issues. This story should horrify anyone who thinks that current child porn laws make sense.

Why?

Why should this horrify us about the laws themselves? This is a case of overzealous, power-tripping prosecutors abusing the law and making ridiculous charges. There is a definite problem with the lack of liability or accountability on the part of city/state/federal prosecutors. When they make charges so blatantly out of line, they or the applicable government should be liable for damages. This guy now has no career and a pile of debt due to their carelessness. It is not, however, due to the law itself. The fact that the charges were dropped shows that.

I remember a few year ago that a teenager who caused a fatality accident while watching a DVD in his car was charged with first-degree murder. I have no idea whether the charges stuck because I never saw a follow-up article. Were his actions stupid? Yes. Were they reckless, possible even vehicular manslaughter? Yes. Were they premeditated murder? Very obviously not. So, because he had trumped-up charges pressed against him, should we rewrite the murder laws and be horrified about whether current murder laws make sense? No, obviously not. Let's go after prosecutors looking for another notch in the staff, instead.

Wrong

"Child porn is a very real and very serious issue that needs to be dealt with."

That statement is what leads to all the problems above. The real issues here are sexual abuse and child abuse. Sexual and child ABUSE are very real and very serious issues that need to be dealt with.

I'm not saying that child porn isn't bad, but it shouldn't be criminal unless the child is actually a victim. Kids have sex, masturbate, look at porn, and will continue to do so no matter what everyone else thinks, says, or does. If they want to take pictures or videos of what they are doing then that should be their right. (Their parents also have the right to punish them)

One consequence of living in the "digital age" is that everything can be caught on camera, and kids (and adults) want to share their experiences with others. Yes, that even includes sexuality. Self produced porn (or voluntary involvement if the real producer is a peer) shouldn't be punished as their is no victim. Distribution against the will of the person in the porn should be illegal regardless of age.

Now if anyone forces anyone else to perform any kind of sexual act then that is sexual abuse. If the victim is a child then it is child abuse. If you pay for child porn that is produced by both sexual abuse and child abuse then you are contributing to said abuses and should be punished. So you see the real problem is covered even without a tough child porn law.

Also, posession shouldn't be a crime. Just because some pervert sent an email with child porn to my gmail account and gmail doesn't really ever let me delete anything doesn't mean I should go to jail. Now if I paid to see that or if I then sell or otherwise distribute the child porn ... that should be illegal

"Child porn is a very real and very serious issue that needs to be dealt with."

Really, is it? I'm not so sure. I very rarely hear about child porn cases anymore, all I hear about is cases in which things that could very loosely be considered child porn, if you're idiot, ruining people's lives.

Re: Why?

You say the fact that the charges were dropped is proof that the fault lies with abusive prosecutors, not the system. I could accept that if it was an isolated incident. But it isn't. Will this man recover his losses in money and reputation as a result of overzealous prosecution? I highly doubt it. Which means the system allows glory-seeking DAs to ruin this man's life without fear of severe repercussions. And the problem is as much one of public sentiment as it is of legalese: frankly, I consider "child porn crusaders" to be hundreds of times more dangerous to me and society in general than even true child abusers.

There are many, many innocent individuals on sex offender lists around the country that did nothing but urinate in public, receive a photo unsolicited, hook up with an underage girl with a fake, etc. Because the charges were not dropped against these people, or they didn't have the funds to fight them and settled, does that mean that justice as it relates to sex offenses is broken? Because it is.

Re: Wrong

I disagree here...I believe you're on the right path, but not really. Unfortunately, the "victims" that you speak of potentially don't even know that they're being victimized. If a parent or family friend is the photographer, the child could be blindly following orders because it's a trusted adult.

I get what you're saying...but there is no way to differentiate between a victim and an absolute willing participant. I believe we already have the line in place (age 18 -- in most cases) that says over this age is willing.

Re: Re: Wrong

Actually, I'm still with TheStuipdOne here. Even if it's a "trusted adult", it's still abuse regardless of whether photos are distributed, and it's the abuse that's the horrifying part.

In fact, plenty of minors are "abused" for the sake of sexualized photography, but since those photos don't meet the criteria of pornographic, then that "abuse" is ok. I'll grant that sexualizing a 14 year old model is a much lesser offense than, say, human trafficking and slavery, but the abuse is much worse than the distribution of photos.

Re: Wrong

I'm not saying that child porn isn't bad, but it shouldn't be criminal unless the child is actually a victim.
Did you actually read the article or just skim it to reply?

First, most children don't even realize they're victims, as most sexual acts against children (whether it be physical or not) are done so by someone they know.

Second, the over-education of such acts is often twisted to a point in which a line is so blurred, most adults (especially men) are restricted with their actions for fear of allegations of sexual misconduct (re: this article).

To sum this all up, and to clarify what's wrong with this country and its laws:
You're a parent. Your daughter is taking a bath. You snap a photo.

Child pornography or innocent picture?

Your neighbor calls the police after seeing the picture.

Child pornography or innocent picture?

Oei's life is now ruined. There is no return, regardless of the circumstances at hand. Once the allegation is out there, people will forever assume he's into child porn.

The law is supposed to protect people.

Not be used for such crap allegations, especially by a two-bit hillbilly who was more pissed she couldn't control her own son rather than take responsibility for his actions.

What truly amazes me is that we believe that pornography in ANY form is actually good for us, and that our children are going to magically ignore anything and everything to do with sex and pornography until they're of legal adult age, even though our society is promoting it more and more every day. While it's good to have laws that try to protect children, too many of the cases are taken out of context, and they are simply not written in a way that can deal with the onslaught of sexual content in our society.

What I also think is hilarious is how self-righteous some people can be when it comes to accusing others of questionable actions, when they're nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. I bet that half or more than half of the people that slammed some of the cast members of Disney's High School Musical movie for certain indiscretions have committed the same or worse acts themselves. The only difference is that they aren't in the public spotlight, which shouldn't really make any difference. And then there's the parents that, while maybe not hypocrites to that degree, instead don't really bother to raise their kids properly at all. They don't care enough to teach them right from wrong, instead leaving that job to the morally-bankrupt government and public school system, and then go bonkers when something that even hints at child pornography comes to light. It's definitely a double standard.

Seriously people, the days of having to find a red-light district or sleazy porn shop because you can't find a fix anywhere else are long gone. With the internet, mainstream movies and TV full of sleaze, and all kinds of other crap around, it's no wonder that kids are getting exposed to this stuff at younger and younger ages. While I think that too many parents over-react, I also empathize with how hard it truly is to shield your children from unhealthy content that is so exceedingly abundant in this day and age.

This is stupid on all accounts. If you charge the principal then you have to charge every law enforcement officer that just so happens to see child pornography in any investigation to prevent and stop. And while the children should not go unpunished in cases like these it is disturbing to the trend of charging with child pornography felonies. They may be stupid and naive but not felons, if you took that approach you would have to arrest every high school boy on molestation charges for making love with Jill. (Euphemisim)

HA!

Laws rarely protect people. And when they do, it usually the wrong people. Kids sending nude pictures is simply wrong. Its really a matter for parents. Parents being what they are it means nothing will happen as certainly my little Suzy wouldn't do anything like that. Its a shame when someone tries to do something they are labeled and have their careers ruined.

Re:

Yes, because hiding it from our kids just does all sorts of good for them, right? Instead of trying to pretend it doesn't exist, be a PARENT and EDUCATE THEM. That's YOUR job, not mine. Just because you failed to use a damned condom and birth control doesn't mean I'm going to take care of your precious little 'accident' for you.

Re: Re: Wrong

I actually read the article wired wrote on this story last week and was utterly outraged that this could ever happen to anyone.

You are absolutely correct when you talk about children not realizing they are actually victims. Parents, family, neighbors are the usual perps but not always, and not what the whole sexting craze is going on about. The sexting issue is about kids making and distributing porn of themselves. Are you going to claim that the kid is both victim and perpetrator here?

Lets refine the law to draw a comparison between rape and inappropriate porn. Any unwilling participation at any age in porn is obviously inappropriate. a 50 year old filming a 14 year old is illegal. a 18 year old filming a 17 year old is not so long as the 17 year old consents. any kid can take pictures or video of themselves.

Please punish family and supposed friends that abuse kids.
Please do not punish kids that explore their own sexuality.

Also please note that all of my discussion here is with regards to the government. parents have every right to (and should) teach their children to be respectful of their bodies and that there can be long term unintended consequences of taking and sharing these pictures and videos

Re: Please

Genuine question.

I'm not very familiar with law and since logic seems not to play much of a role, I'm asking what, if any, recourse does this assistant principal have?

Can he recover legal fees and lost wages by suing the prosecutor's office? What about the "following orders" defense? Can he sue the school?

I hate this kind of stuff. Child porn is the most abhorrent and abominable thing I can think of and should be dealt with severely. Obviously the law and the process of enforcing it need to be brought up to speed with modern technology and the unfortunate side effects. But this guy doing his job and seemingly genuinely trying to protect minors should receive justice.

Nudity

EMERGENCY EMERGENCY !!!!

Something MUST be done. There's kids being buggered EVERYWHERE. They've just built a Buggering Centre by where I live, it's getting out of hand. Just this morning, on the bus to work, 215 kids were being buggered. And that was only on a STUDENT'S TICKET !!!! Imagine if you paid FULL FARE!!!!!

Re: Re: Why?

"Did you miss the part where the guy lost his job and went into huge debt?"

Nope, but you missed where I clearly mentioned it in my post. Here's the quote, in case you can't be bothered to read any better the second time than the first: "This guy now has no career and a pile of debt due to their carelessness."

"Yeah, the charges were dropped but the damage was done."

Yep, exactly. See above.

"The law allows for the destruction of an innocent man's livelihood and reputation, and you're not sure why that's terrifying?"

It is absolutely terrifying, but it is not the child porn laws that allowed it in this case. It was the laws/precedents that allow prosecutors to press ridiculous, trumped-up charges without fear of legal liability on the part of either themselves or the government they represent. Those are the laws that should addressed to prevent this. That isn't to say that sex offender laws are not extremely problematic, but changing them would not have helped this principle's reputation or career one bit.

Re:

"This is stupid on all accounts. If you charge the principal then you have to charge every law enforcement officer that just so happens to see child pornography in any investigation to prevent and stop."

No, because the laws specifically exempt law enforcement officers, courts, legislators, etc.. School officials usually aren't on the "exempt" list.

sexting and cp

This has to do with CP laws and not sexting, but this country has gotten way out of hand in its endeavor to stop any child porn that it will even arrest those who have questionable pictures. My wife is afraid to put up pictures my parents took of me when i was a baby in the bath tub and after my hernia surgery which clearly shows my scars next to my penis when i was a infant because she is afraid that if we have to get the computer fixed and the techie decides to look through the folders will see it we may get arrested for child porn. The laws are written so that any picture could be considered child porn if you interpret it to be. It was written that children should not be punished for exploring their sexuality to a degree I agree with that because it is all part of growing up we are sexual creatures and during puberty we get curious. By the time a child is 13 they have already had sex ed so ofcourse they will be interested in trying it and knowing more about sex than what they have learned in the classroom. A friend of mine at work talks about how her father is afraid to hold his own granddaughter in his arms out in public because of how some people look at him. Society is becoming too restrictive and afraid of what may or may not be wrong that it seems to err on the side of things being wrong. I am planning on writing a book and this is one of the problems I am going to address. Let me ask a couple of questions for anyone who would like to answer them, 1)what about nudist families do they have to cover up just to take family photos at home? 2)does nudity automatically make any picture or situation sexual?

Re: Re: Wrong

I just want to know for what other crime is also illegal to own a picture of said crime. I can look at pictures of dead bodies all day long without anyone knocking on my door.
--------------
Surely by now you must realize that extreme graphic (and real) violence being displayed is perfectly fine. Any kind of nudity let alone sex or in this case a bra on a minor is BAD! This is America those are the rules.